Interpreter’s President doesn’t mix with the little people

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
I Have Questions
God
Posts: 3786
Joined: Tue May 23, 2023 9:09 am

Re: Interpreter’s President doesn’t mix with the little people

Post by I Have Questions »

Tom wrote:
Fri Feb 27, 2026 2:06 am
I hope that the president of the Interpreter Foundation will spare some space in a blog post to offer a few words of thanks to Brother Guymon for his work. It’s the right thing to do.
To be fair, Peterson has now written extensively about “Brother Guymen” a ‘brother’ who worked for Peterson for a decade and who Peterson never bothered to go out of his way to meet.
Sigh. I’ve apparently never done a decent thing in my life, nor had a kind or a good thought.
Start with hyperbole, check.
My statement, yesterday, that I never met Tim Guymon, the long-time typesetter for Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship who recently passed away, was instantly seized upon at the Peterson Obsession Board as proof that I’m willing to exploit “the little people” but that I otherwise disdain them and refuse to mix with them.

After all, I’ve visited Florida innumerable times (presumably with all of my travel and lodging and dining expenses covered by the Interpreter Foundation) while poor Brother Guymon slaved for us, year after year, without any compensation and with no expense account. Yet, even so, I couldn’t be bothered to grace him with My Presence even when I was right there with him in Florida, practically in his front yard. Heck, chimes in one eager chorister, we never even invited him to join our annual birthday party in Utah.

Actually, Brother Guymon worked as Interpreter’s typesetter on a contract basis, and he was paid for his efforts — one of our very few paid workers. And he was invited to our birthday party every single year, without fail, even though he lived somewhere near Pensacola, at the western end of the Florida panhandle and, thus, nearly nineteen hundred miles away.

My wife and I visited Florida multiple times because a Second-Generation Unit, a Legally-Recognized Second-Generation Unit, and a Third-Generation Unit lived in Orlando at the time. (Their names have been redacted to shield them from the tender mercies of the Obsession Board, and, anyway, they’ve since moved from the state.) My wife and I paid for those visits to Florida every single time; no Interpreter monies were used for either our transportation, our food, or our lodging. (I believe that such family visits are still considered ethically permissible by most people, perhaps even if they involve me.)

Florida is a large state. Orlando, where my family members lived, is slightly more than 450 miles from Pensacola, near which Brother Guymon lived. I have never visited Pensacola. Brother Guymon wasn’t the only person in the Pensacola area whom I haven’t met.

Note: An additional accusation has now been appended to those above. Allen Wyatt, who had had by far the longest and most direct interaction with Tim Guymon of any of us at Interpreter, went down to visit Brother Guymon when the latter’s health began to fail. According to the Obsession Board, Allen did so at the expense of Interpreter Foundation donors. However, the demonstrable fact is that no Interpreter funds were used to pay for any portion of Allen’s trip — which probably means, then (and, here, I’m offering my own suggestions, though employing the Obsession Board’s typically rigorous standards of evidence), that Allen’s compensation must have been routed through clandestine Interpreter payments to a Mexican drug cartel, or ISIS, or, my personal favorite, The Syndicate. (For enjoyable documentary evidence regarding The Syndicate, see Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation [2015] and Mission: Impossible – Fallout [2018].]

Even after more than twenty years of this kind of nonsense, the malevolent fantasies of the Obsession Board still sometimes astonish me. The hatred slumbers not, nor sleeps.
Well no, not really about “Brother Guymen”. It’s more personal martyr syndrome rather than anything about “Brother Guymen”. Who was, after all compensated in some way for what he did for Interpreter, and did receive invites to Interpreter get togethers. So there! What the hell was Peterson supposed to do - go out of his way to meet an insignificant nobody as far as Peterson was concerned?

But no Tom, still not a word of thanks for a ten year volunteer (who had some spare change chucked at him from afar) who died recently. I’m now wondering just how many long standing volunteers there are at Interpreter that Peterson has never met? The dilemma Peterson now has, is that were he to correct this horrible misstep and write something nice about Brother Guymen, he’ll be seen to have forced to do so by this board rather than because it was the right thing for the President of the Interpreter Foundation to do so. Brother Guymen will remain just an underling whom Peterson “never met” in the decade or more that Guymen slaved away for him.
Last edited by I Have Questions on Fri Feb 27, 2026 11:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
I Have Questions
God
Posts: 3786
Joined: Tue May 23, 2023 9:09 am

Re: Interpreter’s President doesn’t mix with the little people

Post by I Have Questions »

Gadianton wrote:
Fri Feb 27, 2026 1:19 am
The problem I see here is it feels like he's distancing himself because the guy wasn't very important. If it's somebody important he knows, he's definitely going to tell you all about how they know each other. If it's somebody important he doesn't know, he'll likely just not mention anything about their non-association. By all means, I could be proven wrong if a few quotes were gathered regarding important people and he plainly says he didn't know that person at all.
Yes. I think you’ve got that right. He goes out of his way to attach himself in some long convoluted anecdotal name-dropping way to someone he sees as a “somebody”. “Nobodies” aren’t worth the effort. It’s a slip of the mask and we can see the egotistical LDS social climber in all his glory.

I’ll bet he didn’t even consider writing something nice about Brother Guymen until after he saw this board point out his complete lack of human awareness.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
User avatar
Gadianton
God
Posts: 6440
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:56 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Re: Interpreter’s President doesn’t mix with the little people

Post by Gadianton »

Did somebody here accuse Allan of going to Florida on Interpreter's dime to visit his sick comrade? I missed it if so.

That would be one of those morally ambiguous cases, where yeah, it's technically wrong if not agreed and disclosed, but also quite a pure act of compassion extended to one of their own.

I'd like to see the quote if somebody has it, otherwise it feels like a setup.
Lost Gospel of Thomas 1:8 - And Jesus said, "what about the Pharisees? They did it too! Wherefore, we shall do it even more!"
User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 1653
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:24 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Interpreter’s President doesn’t mix with the little people

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Gadianton wrote:
Sat Feb 28, 2026 2:06 am
Did somebody here accuse Allan of going to Florida on Interpreter's dime to visit his sick comrade? I missed it if so.

That would be one of those morally ambiguous cases, where yeah, it's technically wrong if not agreed and disclosed, but also quite a pure act of compassion extended to one of their own.

I'd like to see the quote if somebody has it, otherwise it feels like a setup.
I would be blown away if Interpreter funds were used to support acts of kindness. The whole organization exists to exact revenge and to support the President’s hobbies. The notion that the organization might actually be decent towards other people is unheard of.
"If, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
User avatar
Gadianton
God
Posts: 6440
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:56 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Re: Interpreter’s President doesn’t mix with the little people

Post by Gadianton »

Okay Okay -- somebody still might reveal the source of the claim. I didn't see it.

I'm just thinking about the advantages to such a claim. Isn't it poisoning the well toward goodness?

Imagine starting a rumor that apostates are claiming that somebody within Ensign Peak embezzled tens of thousands of dollars to help families in his ward who need medical attention not covered by the bishop's storehouse of mac and cheese and spam. Imagine that the alleged perpetrator is stated as a close friend and upstanding saint of the highest integrity. This would poison the well against doing good with the Church's money. "How dare these leachers take a free handout -- they must have suspected what was going on! Time for the poor to tighten their belts! Go buy a leather punch if it comes to it!" or it could simply block the intuition that funds should ever be used for a good cause. "No way would that upstanding man do something like that!"
Lost Gospel of Thomas 1:8 - And Jesus said, "what about the Pharisees? They did it too! Wherefore, we shall do it even more!"
User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 1653
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:24 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Interpreter’s President doesn’t mix with the little people

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Getting to make passive-aggressive jokes about how the critics endlessly depict you as mean and cruel will always triumph over actually being decent and kind. Because you see: being decent and kind on its own doesn’t offer the bonus of a “strike” against the critics. Now, if it were possible to be decent and somehow turn that into a slam-dunk on critics? Sure. It would happen.
"If, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
I Have Questions
God
Posts: 3786
Joined: Tue May 23, 2023 9:09 am

Re: Interpreter’s President doesn’t mix with the little people

Post by I Have Questions »

Gadianton wrote:
Sat Feb 28, 2026 2:06 am
Did somebody here accuse Allan of going to Florida on Interpreter's dime to visit his sick comrade? I missed it if so.

That would be one of those morally ambiguous cases, where yeah, it's technically wrong if not agreed and disclosed, but also quite a pure act of compassion extended to one of their own.

I'd like to see the quote if somebody has it, otherwise it feels like a setup.
Its actually an own goal. Because when an employee is terminally sick and a representative of the hierarchy (in this case Alan) goes to visit them to express solidarity and gratitude for their contributions over the years, the organisation absolutely should pick up the tab. It’s just more demonstration (if any were needed) that the expenses account at Interpreter is all about Peterson and absolutely nobody else.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
I Have Questions
God
Posts: 3786
Joined: Tue May 23, 2023 9:09 am

Re: Interpreter’s President doesn’t mix with the little people

Post by I Have Questions »

Doctor Scratch wrote:
Sat Feb 28, 2026 3:53 am
Getting to make passive-aggressive jokes about how the critics endlessly depict you as mean and cruel will always triumph over actually being decent and kind. Because you see: being decent and kind on its own doesn’t offer the bonus of a “strike” against the critics. Now, if it were possible to be decent and somehow turn that into a slam-dunk on critics? Sure. It would happen.
I fear you’re being too generous. Being actually decent and kind would be, in and of itself, a slam dunk against the criticism being levelled. But no. It doesn’t happen. It wouldn’t bring the attention Peterson craves more than anything else.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Post Reply